MJ, however, is supposed to be gorgeous and way out of Peter's league. Emma Stone is much more of a MJ type than this girl is. She's cute and everything but she's not the super-model, drop-dead, gorgeous that MJ is supposed to be.

She looks like plain Jane. MJ's suppose to be this perfect 10 with family issues

Click to expand...

Agreed. Again, not to malign the looks of this young woman (and who knows what stage makeup will do to her) but MJ is supposed to be the epitome of the Perfect 10. The only reason why she's even aware of the existence of Peter Parker is because they were neighbors and because Aunt May was trying to play matchmaker.

I don't think this girl quite fits the "look" of the Perfect-10 Mary Jane. Again, she's pretty and everything but just from the pictures I've seen of her alone she doesn't really seem to fit the "look" of MJ common in comics. MJ is supposed to be stop-your-heart gorgeous. Which is pretty much what happens when Peter finally meets her face-to-face.

I don't feel this girl quite has this quality. But, we'll see. Maybe it'll be pulled off. I wonder if, then, they'll do the "Death of Gwen Stacy" storyline with Green Goblin's Sophie's Choice Gambit. I'd hate to lose Emma Stone in this franchise but if they did that storyline I'll be highly impressed.

-- Looking at more pictures of her it does seem with enough hair/make-up work she can be the gorgeous Perfect-10 expected of MJ. It's possible these more candid stage shots just aren't serving her well.

Christ, people - the paparazzi have made an industry out of demonstrating that actors and models can look plain and even unattractive without their makeup, in the wrong outfit or outdoor light. How anyone can be so naive this late in the day as to look at the candids of this kid on the Spider-Man set and not get the fact that she's not in make-up or character is...puzzling, to be kind.

Has anyone made the obligatory "I'm officially worried about this movie, now" post regarding ASM2, yet?

She looks more like Ultimate Mary Jane who's supposed to be a teenage beauty and more "down to Earth" than her 616 counterpart. I like the casting a lot and think she'll do great.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I never cared for MJ being some drop-dead gorgeous supermodel anyway. It makes Peter look shallow as hell (and don't give me that "oh, well he sees what a good person she is inside" bullshit either).

I'd much rather they get someone who's charming and adorable and the type of girl someone like Peter really WOULD fall for.

MJ, however, is supposed to be gorgeous and way out of Peter's league. Emma Stone is much more of a MJ type than this girl is. She's cute and everything but she's not the super-model, drop-dead, gorgeous that MJ is supposed to be.

It's pretty terrible casting, IMHO.

Click to expand...

Except that movie characters are frequently not the same as their comics counterparts, as we've seen time and time again. Heck, Raimi's MJ was pretty revisionist herself -- she was never a supermodel or a movie actress, but focused on theater, a direction that the comics' MJ never began to explore until two years after the first movie. And she never had the party-girl personality of the comics' MJ. Plus Peter knew her in high school.

So we can't assume this movie's version of MJ will be a copy of the comics' version any more than Dunst's MJ was. Maybe this is perfect casting for the version of MJ that this movie has created.

And if anyone's thinking that Gwen isn't supposed to be just as hot as MJ, you need to do some remedial reading. Gwen was introduced in her very first panel as "the ex-beauty queen of Standard High, as if you couldn't tell!" Although Ditko couldn't sell it the way Romita could. Note that that panel of Gwen dancing takes place while she's at a party with MJ, and depicts her quite successfully stealing the spotlight from MJ's dancing. There seems to be a perception these days that Gwen was supposed to be the plainer, more girl-next-door type, but the fact is that she was always meant to be every bit as stunning as MJ. Her nickname was even "Gorgeous Gwendy." She filled the role of the stunner who was out of Peter's league well before MJ became a featured character.

She looks more like Ultimate Mary Jane who's supposed to be a teenage beauty and more "down to Earth" than her 616 counterpart. I like the casting a lot and think she'll do great.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I never cared for MJ being some drop-dead gorgeous supermodel anyway. It makes Peter look shallow as hell (and don't give me that "oh, well he sees what a good person she is inside" bullshit either).

I'd much rather they get someone who's charming and adorable and the type of girl someone like Peter really WOULD fall for.

Click to expand...

Peter wasn't interested in her until he met her. It wasn't that he fell in love with her looks he fell in love with HER. Just because she happened to be gorgeous doesn't make him shallow.

She looks like a real world girl, not a pin up. They might pretty her up a bit more.
But I can buy her as a high school student. She looks a bit like an older Ginny Weasley...

Click to expand...

MJ, however, is supposed to be gorgeous and way out of Peter's league. Emma Stone is much more of a MJ type than this girl is. She's cute and everything but she's not the super-model, drop-dead, gorgeous that MJ is supposed to be.

It's pretty terrible casting, IMHO.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid that I have to agree, despite the fact that Shaylene is cute as hell. IMO, both sets of Spider-movies have cast perfect Mary Janes... except they both casted them as Gwen Stacy.

JD posted the first stills of Woodley as MJ on the previous page. I really don't see what the big deal about her is. Kirsten Dunst wasn't exactly the knockout MJ was supposed to be either (and I say this as a big Kirsten fan).

MJ 616 is supposed to be the hot supermodel with more to her than meets the eye (that's why Peter falls in love with her as Trekker mentioned) but it's quite clear from the casting that they don't intend Woodley to be 616 MJ. I get even more of an Ultimate Spider-Man feel from this film than I did the original.

JD posted the first stills of Woodley as MJ on the previous page. I really don't see what the big deal about her is. Kirsten Dunst wasn't exactly the knockout MJ was supposed to be either (and I say this as a big Kirsten fan).

MJ 616 is supposed to be the hot supermodel with more to her than meets the eye (that's why Peter falls in love with her as Trekker mentioned) but it's quite clear from the casting that they don't intend Woodley to be 616 MJ. I get even more of an Ultimate Spider-Man feel from this film than I did the original.

Click to expand...

I googled the actress in question, and my first thought was "You're f-ing kidding me." And no, I'm not talking about how the actress looks or whether she's suitable for the part. I'm talking about all these guys who are saying she's plain looking.

I'm firmly in the "Emma should have been MJ" camp - and honestly this MJ is as far away from Comics MJ as you can get.

I mean she's cute - but I dunno, even with makeup I don't see her being this "ravishing future super model". Gwen looked more "put together" in her night gown than this one does at school.

She might surprise us - never know. BUT all I ask for is that she's got a vivacious, fun, party girl, sorta wild personality. Even if she doesn't "LOOK" like a drop dead gorgeous diva - she should at least project that. Like a "I may not be the hottest girl here, but I'm gonna have fun anyway!" sort of attitude and that's what makes her "hot".

I'm still relieved to see that they are trying to world build and do more than just explore what was set up in the first movie. It seemed like the Raimi movies sort of had all the set up in the first and the second and third basically retread on elements from the first.